50 Ill. 2d 296 - People v. Harper’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably 60 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Williams (1975), 142 Ill. 2d 13 - People v. Streit (1991)
59 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 33 Ill. 2d 417 - The People v. Taylor · 40 Ill. 2d 392 - The PEOPLE v. Raby · 44 Ill. 2d 463 - The People v. Johnson · People v. Westbrook
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘While it is true that the rape and robbery occurred in a series of acts committed at the same place and within a short time, it is equally time that they constituted separate acts involving different elements. As such, they were separate offenses for which concurrent sentences were both constitutionally and statutorily permissible. People v. Johnson (1970), 44 Ill.2d 463 ; People v. Raby (1968), 40 Ill.2d 392 .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * The clear intent of [our] provision for indeterminate sentences is to encourage rehabilitation of prisoners by holding out the possibility of early release on parole. While the sentence [imposed] may comply with the letter of the Sentence and Parole Act, we are of the opinion that it does not comply with its intent. * * * Since prisoners are not eligible for parole until they have served the minimum term (less good time) of an indeterminate sentence * * *, it is obvious that the effect of this sentence was to foreclose any possibility of consideration for parole.” 278 N.E.2d at 774 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Duffy v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.